[closer-devel] ContextL design question...

[Nick Bourner]

Hi Pascal,

I have to agree with your opinion that the prototype-based approach is
the one to go for. I think that  moving to a class-based approach adds
far too much complexity for minimal or no real gain in usefulness or
expressiveness. In my opinion that would be unfortunate, because for
me one of the strengths of ContextL is that it provides a conceptually
simple, but very powerful, abstraction that  can be used to simplify
the organisation and expression of application code. Making the
abstraction more complex somewhat defeats the object - if you're not
careful you could wind up with application code that's as complex as
it would have been without the layering.

Just my 2¢,

Nick

BTW - is the code for slots in layers available? I could really use
that about now :-)


On 2/26/06, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I am currently working on providing meta-level access to layer
> activation/deactivation in ContextL. As expected, this turns up a
> number of related questions, and one of them seems to be very
> fundamental. Before I make a solitary decision here, I would like to
> hear other people's opinions, especially from those who have already
> played around with ContextL.
>
<snip>